User talk:Thedarxide/Archive 4

Retro page

Hi there. Just asking for a bit of advice on the Retro page. The section Retro#Retro_television has been recently added, and I can't make up my mind whether it's valid, or self-promotion, or even both. You have more experience than I - what do you think? Cheers. a_man_alone (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like advertising from the username of the editor Thedarxide (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Truglia

Don't you think that with mainstream articles from Motor, Motor Age, EPA write-ups and the such, that he meets wiki criteria? Wiki la gata (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)wikilagata

I'm not sure, that's why I tagged it. He may be well known is his field, but how big is his field and does this fit guidelines. Basically, I can't answer that, but I was unsure enough to tag it. Thedarxide (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It's a multi-million dollar sector so I thought it was. I work in this industry, so I hope not to see us short changed!Wiki la gata (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)wikilagata

Super Fabric

Hello, I would just like to know what criteria makes articles on Kevlar, or Gore-Tex, for example, NOT blatant advertising? Please be more specific as to what you have a problem with. I read through the Guidelines, but they are vague and as I am very new at this, I would appreciate help, rather than going through an edit war. I have no intention of forcing this information, I just need to know what words and/or phrases, anything specific, that is tipping you off to have this deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, some of the things that stand out are the repeated use of "SuperFabric®", and the big, bold, marketing terms. "formidable barrier", for example, is not neutral language. The Kevlar article is a good example of how to write something like this actually. Thedarxide (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

SuperFabric is the name of the material. Are you suggesting that I can't use that name? Or is it the trademark symbol that's an issue? Also, would you just recommend, then, to unbold all the text? I will go through and try to neutralize the wording. Thanks!Julieskim0202 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the use of ® everytime that concerned me. The bold text isn't at all necessary, see WP:MOS. Thedarxide (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So what about Gore-Tex's article page? This page is ok because although it uses the words "Gore-Tex" repeatedly, it doesn't ues the trademark symbol? Thanks.Julieskim0202 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Thedarxide (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job

YOu know, it's such a delightfully pleasant experience to have a stub you've just created flagged for deletion within seconds of saving it. We have thousands of articles about individual numbered asteroids, articles created by robots, from robotic sources,and so the robots don't tag those articles even though they will only be *read* by robots. But an article created by an actual living human being (soemone who's been here for 5 years, and has a a few good edits under his belt) is immediately stomped on. Well done. This is the way to build the encyclopedia. You are truly one of the great heroes of Wikipedia, have a whole bunhc of barnstars on my behalf.

The article makes no assertion as to why that particular organisation is notable in any capacity. The onus is on you as the page creator to address that before you hit save if you don't want the article being tagged Thedarxide (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. I'd ask you not to bite the newbies except that I'm not a newbie. Please, Oh Mr. Almighty New Pages Patroller, have mercy on this miserable unworthy editor who didn't type in 6 screenfuls before submitting his wretched efforts for your all-knowing scrutiny. THIS is how you choose to spend your time? That is weirder than a snake's suspenders. I suggest you wait at least, oh, say, an *hour* before tagging a new article! Soem of us don't type as fast as you do. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you use the {{newpage}} tag if you intend on improving the article over a period of time. Thedarxide (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the same someone who recently sent 3 articles I started (1, 2, 3) to AFD, and then whined about how none of them got deleted, is now profusely and unduly sarcastically whining about someone nominating a stub he created for deletion - considering it enough of a travesty to start a section about it on his own user page. We're talking about a nomination on a stub article, shorter in length than the whining itself. Reswobslc (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Individual pins in the RS 232 interface don't need articles. I'm looking forward to a scholarly and erudite encyclopedia article about TxD, too. Sarcasm and whining is a perfectly natural way to cope with the eccentricity of Wikipedia. YOu must be bored if you're following me around the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please give The Goodbye Pie 24 hours to live. I am writing it under severe restraints. If you need more info, contact me at goodbyepie @ yahoo.ca Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Pie (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Patent nonsense and cohesive articles

The reason I did not delete Golden tanning beach tits (the food) is it is not patent nonsense. While it required a lot of cleanup to remove the random text, what's left is a recipe for a snack food. The text has meaning, and only meaningless text is patent nonsense.

That said, it clearly violates WP:OR and WP:NFT, but neither of those are grounds for speedy deletion. However, proposed deletion would be an appropriate venue for the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

See also my comment at Talk:Golden tanning beach tits (the food). The article doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. However, in my frank opinion, it's garbage. It wouldn't survive AfD, and I don't see a reason to keep it. I can justify deleting it under WP:SNOW, but I'm going to see if anybody objects before I do that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glossary of exercise terms

An article that you have been involved in editing, Glossary of exercise terms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of exercise terms. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Warrah (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Oh, well... I wanted to say that you should carefully evaluate who's editing you will name disruptive. Removing non-breaking space   is according to Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Snek01 (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Snek01 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity - where does Footnotes recommend against the hard space? a_man_alone (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 Hours for labelling another editor's contributions as vandalism is decidedly not cool and edit warrining into the bargain. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thedarxide (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is grossly inappropriate, especially when there is active discussion going on at ANI. I dispute the fact that I am "edit-warring", when I am reverting edits that another user has been told by an admin not to make.

Decline reason:

Since you reverted the article in question five times in 48 hours, your block for edit warring appears to be well justified. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thedarxide (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You're skirting the point: Snek01 was told not to make those edits - why I am wrong for reverting them? As I said, given the discussion at ANI this block is innappropriate. This is focussing purely on the Norway Lobster article rather than the issue. Another editor has just stated "If an editor is going to try to do this across all articles he edits, he should be plainly told whether or not that's appropriate" Snek01 HAS being doing this, and labelling his edits as "typo", and he HAS been told that it is inappropriate, which is why I opened the fresh notice at ANI.

Decline reason:

Obvious edit warring; the block is appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thedarxide (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would appreciate it, as an experienced and long-time editor, if my question would actually be answered, and the facts considered, rather than receiving one line responses. If the admin was right to state that Snek01 should desist, then I should not be blocked for reverting his edits (see discussion below).

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. If others disrupt Wikipedia, that does not mean you may too.  Sandstein  18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• As an experienced editor you would surely have realised that revert warring and labelling another (misguided perhaps) editor as a vandal were disruptive and liable for a block? The 3RR exemption for vandalism does not apply to arguments over content. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I appreciate that, however, my assumption was that given that an admin has issued an instruction, I was justified in reverting. This is why I posted at ANI. I guess this should probably have been done the first time that Snek01 violated the instruction? I'm happy to be constructively admonished, but blocking me after trying to get something done seems incredibly harsh. Thedarxide (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And had I only blocked one side in the dispute I would inevitably have been rightly criticised for inconsistancy or favouring one side in the dispute over another. labelling another editor's contributions as vandalism is extremely uncool and two wrong still don't make a right in my book. Admins do not have any special right to impose solutions to content disputes and the correct action was for you to report Sneck for further edit warring rather then keeping up the war from your side. I guess I couldn't make anyone happy here. The real issue is now that you have taken on board the feedback and I am seeing a movement in your tone, would you act differently if faced with this situation again and what have you learned? I suggest that you put up another unblock and see whether some contrition and demonstrating that you understand where you went wrong with this might persuade someone to unblock (happy for uninvolved admins to use their own best judgement and not wait to refer to me if I'm off-line) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll be honest, I'll wait the 24 remaining hours, but yes, I would act differently in future. As I've already said, I don't believe I was edit warring, as I have nothing to do with the content dispute. My involvement only arose because I watch the Norway Lobster article, saw the back-and-forth, read the other boards comments, and then stepped in. I realise now I stepped in incorrectly, but I had the best of intentions. Thedarxide (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Given this response I would be willing to commute the block to time served if you agree to stay off that article until the original term expires. If you agree just post here and I'm happy for anyone passing to unblock if I don't gte to it first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Thank you. Thedarxide (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)